About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
, but a gunshot wound to the neck left him unable to speak. it was unclear if he was read his miranda rights. but in washington, white house spokesman jay carney said he's a naturalized u.s. citizen, so he will not face a military tribunal. >> he will not be treated as an enemy combatant. we will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice, under us law. u.s. citizen can not be trialed, tried rather in military commissions. and it's important to remember that since 9-11 we have used the federal court system to convict and incarcerate hundreds of terrorists. >> brown: tsarnaev was also likely to face state charges in the shooting death of a police officer at m.i.t. it all followed his dramatic capture friday evening, when he was found hiding and wounded in a boat behind a home in the boston suburb of watertown. his older brother tamarlen died hours earlier in a shoot-out with police that triggered the all-day manhunt and shut down the city. yesterday, on cbs, massachusetts governor deval patrick stood by the unprecedented measures. >> i think people understood that we were
. >> let's talk about the issue a lot of people have been talking about. not everybody, but some. miranda rights. we've watched enough detective shows no know, police shows, they give miranda rights almost like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. it's done. why do you think that's an issue? now we just got the word as we went on the air tonight the defendant here, the suspect, i guess he's a defendant now, has been given his miranda rights. >> this is truly something of an urban legend. people like to watch shows where a criminal goes free because he wasn't given miranda rights. that's extremely rare. i do criminal defense work. i can tell you, the most you can hope for in a miranda case is one or two statements will not make it into court. it's rare the whole case falls out unless everything -- >> so it's not the poison fruit thing? >> there is a poison fruit provision, standard. but it's very rare for it to pollute an entire case. >> let me ask you practically, why don't the law enforcement officials, the federal officials up there who have him in custody at the hospital, why didn't they just
federal government has done the right thing. when ints that somehow suspects have right to counsel miranda warnings causes them to stop cooperating with law enforcement is not facts and studies. and ct, d.o.j. officials senior law enforcement officials 90% of the ou 80% to time in sophisticated cases when defense counsel get involved to help emhis more and icit more information allow the case to go forward. there have been multiple cases 9/11 that have been prosecuted, investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement resulted in more information available to law lawful tools ing without needing to violate rights. senator mentioned graham. he pushed against the decision the combatant status. [video clip] >> i hope the congress will at this case and look at our laws and come to the to.lusion that i have come we are at war. for a going to be at war very long time and we have to have the tools to defend values.es within our one of those tools is the ability to question people about future attacks to gather intelligence for national purposes without benefit of counsel. the information will neve
with american citizens. it allows the justice department to delay reading a suspect his miranda rights if doing so is in the interest of -- quote -- "public safety." the administration had rightly invoked this public safety exception in the case of the boston suspect which provided our national security professionals a discreet period of time to gather intelligence from the suspect without the presence of his lawyer. however, soon after questioning him this way, the administration recently reversed itself and read the suspect his miranda rights. in doing so, the administration, in my view, gave up a valuable opportunity to lawfully and thoroughly question the suspect for purposes of gathering intelligence about potential future terrorist plots. whether we will be able to acquire such information has now been left entirely at the discretion of the suspect and his lawyer. put simply, the suspect has been told he has the right to remain silent, and if he doesn't want to provide intelligence, he doesn't have to. is this a responsible balance between a citizen's rights and our national security? the
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)